ASILurker: 9 posts yesterday and 4 today, so far. Nothing is going to overcome his or her preference for blaming the US and its allies (and we are not blameless) and exonerating Russia etc.

That said, in order to interrupt the stream of biased assertion, which IMHO has crossed the line into trolling, here are some recent facts about Russian interference in international affairs:

Quote

What advice would Mr. Putin have offered his American counterpart, the man whom Mr. Putin tried to help elect, according to the American intelligence community?

Mr. Putin’s objectives are plain: to restore Russia to global greatness at the expense of the United States and to divide Europe by weakening NATO and the European Union. In Mr. Putin’s zero-sum calculus, when the United States and Europe founder, Russia benefits. The Russian leader knows that America’s global power rests not only on our military and economic might but also on our unrivaled network of alliances from Europe to Asia. For some seven decades, our alliances have ensured that America’s strength and influence are magnified. Accordingly, Mr. Putin seeks to drive wedges between the United States and its closest partners, to strain and ultimately rupture its alliances.

If Mr. Putin were calling the shots, he would ensure that America’s reliability is doubted, its commitments broken, its values debased and its image tarnished. He would advise the new president to take a series of steps to advance those aims

And on the World Cup:

Quote

In the spring of 2010, Christopher Steele, a former British spy with a shock of graying hair and a quiet, understated manner, received some alarming news: Vladimir Putin, a lifelong ice hockey fan, had taken a sudden interest in soccer.

.... In 2010, Mr. Steele, regarded among those who knew him as a serious and levelheaded MI6 officer, had only recently retired and opened his private intelligence firm in London. He might have reasonably expected to be embarking on an uneventful, if lucrative, second career. But the story of what happened next would profoundly affect his and countless others’ lives, foreshadowing the Trump investigation and the shadowy role Russia plays in the modern world.....Mr. Steele ... expertise in Russia ... undercover in Moscow, and he maintained extensive contacts in Russian government and business circles. ... He was no stranger to Russia’s playbook. When it came to pursuing national objectives, the country had few if any compunctions about employing whatever means — collusive, corrupting, scandalous — might be necessary. And on its face, it was clear the Russian bid was going to need a lot of help. ....Mr. Steele collected a growing pile of intelligence suggesting that Russian government officials and oligarchs close to Mr. Putin had been enlisted to push the effort, cutting shadowy gas deals with other countries in exchange for votes, offering expensive gifts of art to FIFA voters and even dispatching Roman Abramovich, the billionaire who owns the London-based Chelsea Football Club, to South Africa to pressure Sepp Blatter, FIFA’s president.....the FBI’s Eurasian Organized Crime squad, had been looking for opportunities to chase down conspiracies emanating from Russia. After breaking the back of the Russian mob in New York, the squad had set its sights on border-crossing financial crimes involving oligarchs and mafia kingpins. Mr. Steele’s intelligence about Russian attempts to corrupt FIFA seemed to check all the boxes.....a convincing case that the beautiful game had become little more than a source of vast profits for an international organized crime syndicate.....[since 2015] more than two dozen people and entities have been convicted of, or pleaded guilty to, racketeering, wire fraud and money laundering in the case, which continues.

The Department of Justice managed to do something that few if any of the sport’s billions of fans had ever believed possible: FIFA, nested high above Zurich and, its officials thought, beyond any kind of regulation or government interference, had finally been held accountable.

The investigation also forged a strong bond of trust between Mr. Steele and American law enforcement

Of course, Mr. Putin has his strongest ally now installed as our head of state, and some of you guys are eager to undermine Trump's opponents, those of us who retain some vestige of concern for the population at large and the future of planet earth under a democratic system not run by the kleptocracy, with freedom of information and restraints on suppressing opposition like that growing in Turkey, Egypt, and parts even of Europe, in the name of racism and property.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Remember Hitler and Stalin.

I ain't been on in a hot minute. But I just came to share the reality.

Both sides in the U.S. are complicit in the ongoing diversion of global attention from the reality of abrupt climate change. In fact, name a single Western government, or in fact any powerful nation that gets regular media attention which is being realistic with its constituents regarding the severity of our current predicament. As in motivating their nation to serious, legitimately impactful changes which will prevent our collective demise, reminding people on a regular basis of the steps we need to be taking RIGHT NOW individually and industrially, and actually fucking making an impact. Go ahead. One nation.

Why are there ZERO? Because Trump and the entire fucking circus surrounding him are the biggest fucking diversion in the history of mankind. Because world leaders, collectively and privately, know there are no solutions, just as well as most everyone here. Because we have little time left, and the changes are becoming drastic and noticeable all over the world.

Because the panic that would erupt from global recognition would lead to hasty collapses all over the globe, out of sheer hysteria alone.

The alternative is: Divert. Distract. Deny. Downplay. And simply carry on this way for as long as possible, until the impacts are so severe that it doesn't matter any more - The weather becomes so severe that large portions of our crop systems have failed and there's no food left to go around, for example.

World leaders are coasting on diversionary bullshit, especially at the mouth of Trump (The man who applied to build seawalls around his golf course citing global warming + coastal erosion as a main reason, but allegedly "doesn't believe in climate change" - fucking horse shit, yes he demonstrably does.) to avoid the absolute chaos that would unfold were most people to truly recognize how dire our circumstance.

In other words: Fuck russia, fuck trump, fuck identity politics, fuck liberals, fuck conservatives, fuck the notion that ANY powerhouse nations are taking climate change seriously, simply put, fuck standing in a burning building arguing about the structural integrity. You are about to fucking die, get out of the goddamn building or put the fire out. The individual and collective behaviour of politicians worldwide implies there's simply no way to do so, and so we have our current state of affairs.

You are being duped, no matter which side you find yourself on. Good luck everyone. We will surely need it soon.

Syria: Scores of civilian casualties in suspected Russian air strike on Idlib

Responding to reports that Russian aircraft carried out an attack in Idlib province last night, killing at least 44 people, Lynn Maalouf, Middle East Research Director at Amnesty International, said:

“This outrageous attack, the deadliest in Idlib so far this year, targeted the village of Zardana overnight while people were breaking the Ramadan fast. Among those killed were at least six children, and the death toll is expected to rise as the wounded succumb to their injuries. Deliberately attacking civilians violates international humanitarian law and is a war crime."

Russia's state-controlled media said later Friday that the Defense Ministry had denied carrying out any strikes in Idlib. The ministry instead blamed artillery fire between rebel groups in the area for the carnage.

There's a lovely little facility that allows one to ignore commenters. It helps keep me sane and makes the trolling more obvious and easier to count. I mostly agree with the analysis that says we need to radically review our acceptance of the way we lead our day-to-day lives if we are going to survive. But but but ... how? Spewing hatred is certainly not an improvement by any definition.

Meanwhile, I came across this pithy summary which explains why hating on the people who are trying to make progress in difficult circumstances leads to success of the worst enemies.

When will Susan, Rob, Buddy et al stop with the internalized default biases, their unconscious racism and bigotry, and stop spreading their fears and their 'hatred' about their fellow Americans and the rest of the world?

I have mentioned before the obvious existence of Echo Chambers and Life in a Gold Fish Bowl and so on. Here above Susan Anderson confirms the theory with another example of this fact. Don't read comments or references or think about history when it conflicts with your state of mind creating unbearable Cognitive Dissonance disturbances.

The quick easy American solution is to stick one's Ostrich looking head into the Sand forever.

When will the collective US media, social media jockeys, the 'deep state', the US Congress and talking heads like Brennan and Clapper and the American people as a collective stop doing that?

They call this "psychological projection". Happens a lot to people who have ultra-biased opinions.

Let us see : What is more likely :

That Susan, Rob, Buddy et al as well as the collective US media, social media jockeys, the [imaginary] 'deep state', the US Congress and talking heads like Brennan and Clapper and the American people as a collective have their Ostrich looking head into the Sand forever,

I am too busy fighting for progressive ideals in my own country to spend hours in endless insult fests with the few, the proud, who wish to claim that I and my fellow Democrats and progressives in the US are evil and must be defeated: end result, Trump and his enablers.

How is it that we are OK with the lowest paid workers not getting a living wage while the CEO and his upper management laugh all the way to the bank (offshore account, yacht, even the chosen charities that while beneficial allow individuals to decide what's most useful to the least fortunate)?

What has been disrupted is a decent living wage and benefits like health care, safe working conditions, safe clean water for all, a hospitable earth for the younger amongst us, etc.

Check out Musk's flamethrower! Great tool for danger, at a profit. Sick!

I am disappointed in the downward trajectory of earth's apex predator, but I'm not going to attack victims.

What about that makes me evil? My unwillingness to endlessly prolong my argument with the few here who are more eager to insult people of goodwill who are working for change in this hatefest?

*

Quote

“Let’s talk about real freedom,” Warren said, during her speech. “Done right, strong, clear regulations protect the freedom of every American. How free would you be if companies were allowed to lie to you about their businesses in order to trick you into investing your life savings in their stock? How free would you be if no one had to wash their hands before they handled your hamburger? How free would you be if companies could pass off little white pills as antibiotics, even if they weren’t?” Finally, she said, “Don’t tell me that all rules do is restrict freedom. Good rules empower people to live, work, and do business freely and safely.”

During the Presidential campaign, Trump spoke of “draining the swamp,” of protecting the middle class, and of tightening restrictions on Wall Street activity. He specifically vowed to rid Washington of the influence of lobbyists. Shortly after Trump took office, though, former lobbyists were quickly appointed to positions overseeing the same industries that they once lobbied for, and they have been placed on Trump’s secretive “deregulation teams,” which have been systematically trying to reverse rules and policies that corporations don’t like. According to a ProPublica report from March, at least a hundred and eighty-seven of Trump’s political appointees are former federal lobbyists. Several federal agencies are now run by individuals who have publicly expressed opposition to their own agencies’ missions.

Nowhere has the Trump Administration’s approach to regulations been more evident than in its handling of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency that Warren was instrumental in creating. The agency was formed in the wake of the financial crisis, in recognition of the financial industry’s role in exacerbating the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. The goal of the agency was to protect consumers from abuses by banks, mortgage lenders, and other financial firms. From the outset, the financial industry has resisted this new agency and its powers, and last year Trump appointed Mick Mulvaney, a former Republican congressman from South Carolina, to run it. From the moment Mulvaney took over, he has taken steps to weaken the agency, even as major banks have reported record-breaking earnings. Mulvaney has tried to gut the C.F.P.B.’s budget, reduce its ability to operate independently of Congress, and, most recently, disbanded an advisory board of outside experts that the agency relied on.

I'm sorry your feelings are hurt, but that does not validate injuring well over 90% of the population to justify your rage. That is not humane, it's autocratic.

Sadly, power elites always take over (see Christianity and Communist Russia). I'd agree the weak should pay better attention and not let the psychopaths take over, but history is against us. Unfortunately, goodwill is often seen as weakness and exploited. Don't you join in the lemon sessions, please.

Looking over the response from ASILurker on Assange and Ivica's response (Arctic Cafe), I note that he or she chose not to read what was said by Laura Poitras and the objective interview at The New Yorker but rather to attack me personally and thereby diminish the credibility of the careful third-party references I provided. Seems Laura Poitras is not good enough if it doesn't fit the narrative?https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,179.msg157233.html#msg157233

Tangentially related to Russia (moreso than my previous comment here, admittedly), though it was in response to recruiting for support for Assange.

If we are to talk about ideas >> events >> people, I'd say the effort to smear anyone supporting the remnants of democracy as not good enough falls in "people" and is decidedly unhelpful.

Logged

magnamentis

Looking over the response from ASILurker on Assange and Ivica's response (Arctic Cafe), I note that he or she chose not to read what was said by Laura Poitras and the objective interview at The New Yorker but rather to attack me personally and thereby diminish the credibility of the careful third-party references I provided. Seems Laura Poitras is not good enough if it doesn't fit the narrative?

you know, there are a few very skilled trolls around, even they learn to surf the edge in such a sophisticated manner that they won't be expelled.

but trust me, they ultimately make a mistake and gotten rid of.

i observe very carefully what happens over a few years now and only 1 guy i secretly decided is trolling is left posting here and i see only 1 post of that one remaining per month.

so what i'm saying is, don't worry susan, watch and see them go. only thing i regret at times is that the time between cause and effect at times is very very long, on a global scale sometimes centuries and the damage to the world and the number of lives lost in the process unfortunately is huge.

Please pardon this deviation from the Russiagate/Russia topic. This is submitted in the interest of better discussion.

There recently has been a proliferation on the political threads of this forum of argumentum ad hominem. The matter deserves some examination.

Ad hominem arguments are not necessarily attacks, though they typically are. This is a public discussion forum. Statements and comments are properly about the stated topic, not those who participate. All statements about other discussants are off-topic and inappropriate.

Brief compliments are, technically, also off-topic. However, they may help to cement a collegial atmosphere and therefore may tend to enhance quality of discussion. Personal criticisms, however, are destructive to the community of those who participate here.

"This said, during these difficult times, it’s critical to make sure that disagreement is done with civility and respect. And yes, given how passionate people are about the many issues at hand, this is not easy to do. As someone who is connected to all kinds of people with all kinds of views, I’m constantly working to make sure to tease apart the people from the ideologies that they support. With this all in mind, here is some guidance on keeping arguments about issues and not about other human beings. . . .

"Avoiding ad hominem attacks is, in fact, a foundational element of civil discourse. Having this concept clearly explained helped me see such fallacious argumentation for what it is — and thus, I feel better prepared to avoid it, although I know I’m not perfect."

How, then, might a socially-responsible discussant reply to ad hominem statements? I would suggest that ignoring such postings may be most appropriate. If one does respond, however, replying with a retaliatory ad hominem is almost always counter-productive to worthwhile discourse. A brief reply such as "please consider submitting comments that do not include ad hominem attacks" might also be useful.

FAN (the Russian "news agency" paid for by Yevgeny Prigozhin ("Putin's Chef")) which also runs the now infamous Internet Research Agency or the St. Petersburg "troll factory" has launched a new endeavor which focusses on the US : "USA Really".

Bellingcat gives a good overview of this rather incompetent endeavor :

..the fact that FAN publicly announced the launch of USA Really ahead of time, and how the site seems mostly concerned about talking about being censored by American authorities, it is difficult to take the actual content they produce seriously. The real audience of USA Really may actually be Russians reading and watching Russian-language articles about American censorship of the site, rather than actual American voters.

Interesting note : Arron Banks, founder of Leave.EU and one of the biggest sponsors of the #brexit-campaign apparently had at least three meetings with Russian embassy officials in the run-up to the Brexit referendum :

Banks, who gave £12m of services to the campaign, becoming the biggest donor in UK history, has repeatedly denied any involvement with Russian officials, or that Russian money played any part in the Brexit campaign.

Please pardon this deviation from the Russiagate/Russia topic. This is submitted in the interest of better discussion.

There recently has been a proliferation on the political threads of this forum of argumentum ad hominem. The matter deserves some examination.

Ad hominem arguments are not necessarily attacks, though they typically are. This is a public discussion forum. Statements and comments are properly about the stated topic, not those who participate. All statements about other discussants are off-topic and inappropriate.

Brief compliments are, technically, also off-topic. However, they may help to cement a collegial atmosphere and therefore may tend to enhance quality of discussion. Personal criticisms, however, are destructive to the community of those who participate here.

"This said, during these difficult times, it’s critical to make sure that disagreement is done with civility and respect. And yes, given how passionate people are about the many issues at hand, this is not easy to do. As someone who is connected to all kinds of people with all kinds of views, I’m constantly working to make sure to tease apart the people from the ideologies that they support. With this all in mind, here is some guidance on keeping arguments about issues and not about other human beings. . . .

"Avoiding ad hominem attacks is, in fact, a foundational element of civil discourse. Having this concept clearly explained helped me see such fallacious argumentation for what it is — and thus, I feel better prepared to avoid it, although I know I’m not perfect."

How, then, might a socially-responsible discussant reply to ad hominem statements? I would suggest that ignoring such postings may be most appropriate. If one does respond, however, replying with a retaliatory ad hominem is almost always counter-productive to worthwhile discourse. A brief reply such as "please consider submitting comments that do not include ad hominem attacks" might also be useful.

Steve

Thank you for the timely reminder (speaking for myself only). I've been trying to use other's voices that might be respected by those who appear to find my words and presence unacceptable, but I broke these and my own rules and I apologize.

My intention is to present a point of view that I think is important enough to put up with the bullying and lemon sessions, but I do understand that responding to misrepresentations and claims I am someone I know I am not amplifies the problem.

..the fact that FAN publicly announced the launch of USA Really ahead of time, and how the site seems mostly concerned about talking about being censored by American authorities, it is difficult to take the actual content they produce seriously. The real audience of USA Really may actually be Russians reading and watching Russian-language articles about American censorship of the site, rather than actual American voters.(End quote)

In other words, they thrive on their own contrived sense of moral outrage, feeding off it, raging against any suggestion they themselves might be unreasonable, for example? This is the bully pulpit, nothing more. Behaviour of that sort deserves zero response - and it's good to call it out for what it is. It's certainly not respectful discourse in a civilised manner. One should never confuse being bossy with being authoritative. Just a thought or two... RC

The UN's secretary general has called for an investigation into deadly air strikes in Syria last week that were allegedly conducted by Russian jets.

António Guterres expressed deep concern about Thursday's attack on the rebel-held town of Zardana, which activists said killed at least 47 civilians....In a statement released on Sunday night, Mr Guterres called for "a full investigation into the attacks, especially allegations that there was also a second strike targeting first responders, to establish accountability".

Let's see if there can be any form of justice after such attacks in the mess that is Syria.

Norway's decision is widely seen as an attempt to stave off any possible incursions from Oslo’s larger neighbor. The U.S. Marines were only expected to stay in Norway until the end of this year, but now Norway wants to increase the U.S. military presence in its country after 2019. The U.S. troops will be asked to stay for at least five years after that, according to reports, and are expected to be sent to regions of Norway that border Russia.

Moscow’s neighbors such as Norway, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, have all expressed concern over Russia’s revanchist tendencies following the 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula and Moscow’s support for pro-Russian separatists fighting in Ukraine. In 2016, Norway began building a fence along its border with Russia, and the idea of an invasion has become so deeply ingrained in the Norwegian consciousness that the country produced a popular television series about the subject called Occupied.

I'd say that what some people call "Russian expansionism" is more of protecting its own Russian people in the aftermath of the breakdown of the Soviet empire. Lots of Russians live in those former Soviet republics, and in some places they are discriminated against. Such was the case in the almost entirely Russian Crimea, which due to historical mistakes was given away to the Ukraine back in the 1950's. Some such mistakes need to be corrected.

Several prominent Russians, some in President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle or high in the Russian Orthodox Church, now have been identified as having contact with National Rifle Association officials during the 2016 U.S. election campaign, according to photographs and an NRA source.

Other influential Russians who met with NRA representatives during the campaign include Dmitry Rogozin, who until last month served as a deputy prime minister overseeing Russia’s defense industry, and Sergei Rudov, head of one of Russia’s largest philanthropies, the St. Basil the Great Charitable Foundation. The foundation was launched by an ultra-nationalist ally of Russian President Putin.

an NRA delegation met with Rogozin and Rudov during a trip to Russia in December 2015.

Even as the contacts took place, Kremlin cyber operatives were secretly hacking top Democrats’ emails and barraging Americans’ social media accounts with fake news stories aimed at damaging the image of Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton and boosting the prospects of Republican Donald Trump.

The NRA, Trump’s biggest financial backer, spent more than $30 million to boost his upstart candidacy

Torshin has drawn focus in part because he was implicated in a years-long investigation by Spanish authorities into money-laundering by the Russian mob.

Regarding the war in Ukraine, many Russian trolls suggest that the Ukrainian army is shelling its own citizens. But if you check the facts, that is an extremely hypocritical assertion without any evidence at all. In fact the opposite is true :

In the "Russia in Ukraine" thread I have shown many examples where the attacks on schools, bus-stops and hospitals verifiably were launched from the Russian controlled side.

This is a recurring pattern, seen in the Mariupol attacks, and the Volnovakha checkpoint attack, and Kramatorsk, and Artemivsk, both attacked with cluster munition, and in Donetsk, against the very people that these "separatists" claim to protect, the deadly attacks on school 63, and the Leninsky bus stop, and the Jan 30 mortar attacks, ALL of these CLEARLY were fired from Russian controlled areas.

Now, finally there may be some justice for at least ONE of these murderous attacks on the civilians of Eastern Ukraine.

For the Mariupol attack it was clear from the start that it came from Russian controlled area (even the OSCE reported that), and it was suspected that the Russian Military committed this atrocity, not the "separatists", but now there is evidence, and the the perpetrators are identified.

They turn out to be Russian military commanders in active service with the Russian Ministry of Defense.

The Bellingcat Investigation Team has determined conclusively that the artillery attack on the Ukrainian town of Mariupol on 24 January 2015, which resulted in at least 30 civilian deaths and over 100 injuries, came from Russia-controlled territory. Bellingcat has also determined that the shelling operation was instructed, directed and supervised by Russian military commanders in active service with the Russian Ministry of Defense. Bellingcat has identified nine Russian officers, including one general, two colonels, and three lieutenant colonels, involved directly with the military operation.

Using this evidence, the Ukrainian government has filed a case into the International Court of Justice.

@Neven. I wanted to look at that, as I used to watch Cenk Uygur, who opens the program. At first it looked good. But starting around minute 16 it goes seriously off the rails. Anyone who hasn't noticed that Trump is in thrall to Putin (probably financially and other forms of blackmail (and I dismiss absolutely the clickbait "pee tape" nonsense), money laundering, Russian mob, the evidence is overwhelming) hasn't been paying attention. He has resisted when he could, and continues to do so. [It was Republicans who voted for sanctions; Trump refused to enforce them for months.] The North Korean "summit" was just the most recent iteration of that process.

Those kids are attractive but obsessively seeking out sources that confirm one's bias does not at all convey the broad spectrum of events that are - to keep this as direct as possible, I speak for myself - in my face (and other Americans' faces) every day. Right now we have kids being separated from their parents at the border, dismantling environmental protections at speed, subsidizing coal, encouragement of white supremacism that has increased hate crimes all over the country, encouragement of violence and rage, etc. Have a look: https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-negotiating-style-is-pure-art-of-the-moron*

Their analysis is a bit off the wall, and their characterization of people like me is off base.

This is just my opinion, but I pay a lot of attention: it's my world, and I am one of the many battered Americans.

As for Bolton, he's a monster. Democrats are not hawks, and those claims on this video is over the top.

This guy is an ideologue. I don't know how these youngsters think they are going to overcome our Hitler-in-waiting if they get rid of liberals and Democrats. They seem to think that if they get into huddles and tell each other how wrong we are somehow the real monsters will fold up and go away. Our civil liberties, our clean water, our infrastructure, our courts, our health care, our social safety net, the freedom of the press, it is all being cut away. Somehow we are the villains?!!

Quote

*Great work taking direction from the Home Office in Moscow; you spent more time at the G7 summit doing Vladimir Putin’s bidding than you did strengthening the ties between the United States and our closest allies.

Russia, Iran, Syria, and other bad actors want to thank you, Mr. President. You sent the clearest of signals that sanctions regimes, inspections, and verified denuclearization are no longer relevant in our brave new era of nationalist populist strongmen and Michael Bay knockoff videos.

Evidently, all the bad guys have to do is kiss your ample ass long enough and shower you with enough superficial praise and they can play you like the trifling intellectual lightweight you most certainly are. So, thank you for that reminder.

Ever wonder what the consequences of legitimizing a nuclear-armed madman who has used chemical weapons on his own family, starved his people, and engaged in systematic mass murder to retain power might be? Congratulations! You’re about to find out. Us too.

Thank you, Mr. President, for reminding us that Kim Jong Un is talented. I couldn’t agree more. He’s talented at killing his uncles, half-brothers, cousins, and countrymen with poison, anti-aircraft guns, chemical weapons, and flamethrowers. He’s talented at starving his people, systematically reducing their life expectancy, health, and even height because of the chronic malnutrition his evil policies entail. He’s talented like his father and grandfather before him at rooking Western leaders. They’re talented at proposing deals they never had the slightest intention of keeping.

Heckuva job, Mr. President. No matter what a weapons-grade dumpster fire this week created, you’re safe from congressional oversight, but you know that by now. Nothing you do matters to this Congress. No matter what damage you inflict on our economy, our alliances, trade, our stature in the world, our role as an exemplar of democratic values, our ability to serve as an honest broker in the international community, and our security, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell will lay supine before you.

Their evident, constant terror at running afoul of your volcanic temper, lunatic followers, and media cheer squad mutes their tongues and stays their hands even when they should know better. They should fear a world where America is isolated, mistrusted, and weaker economically, morally, and politically. They should worry the acid drip of your rhetorical and moral poison reduces American power and influence.

So congratulations, Mr. President. You spent the week deliberately wrecking American alliances and leadership, allied yourself with one of the most egregious enemies of freedom in the world, and abandoned the shared values of our friends like Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Germany.

@ASILurker: you all keep forgetting I live here, and our news is in my face every day. Today was the Trump Foundation lawsuit and the Inspector General report, along with separating kids from their parents on purpose at the border, and AG Sessions using the Bible to justify doing so. He thinks God elected Trump.

I've got all the details; I'd be better off if I were not a news junkie. But I am hoping to do my little bit to change our government away from monsters back to people who care about other people and about our earth.

(yes, I know, OT, but claims from outside do tend to ignore the outrageousness, day by day, month by month, of living under a budding Hitler. I am, as you claim, a bit privileged, but even in Boston hate crimes are on the rise.)

Lurker, why not STOP the ad hominums, and come to the right side of history ?Just drop your support of murderous dictators, and go with reason and evidence instead..Would be so refreshing, for this forum, for humanity and justice and for your own peace of mind as well.

They cannot assign blame (Russia vetoed a UN proposition to do so).However, a joint UN-OPCW mission that recently ended said it was confident that government forces used Sarin in an attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun just days after the incidents in nearby Latamina.

Also, since the Syrian government is the only one to be known to made Sarin, attribution is fairly well determined.

Also Bellingcat gave an excellent overview of all of the different chemical weapon systems that the Syrian government has used over the years :

THE HAGUE, Netherlands —13 June 2018—The Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), confirmed in a report released today that sarin was very likely used as a chemical weapon in the south of Ltamenah, Syrian Arab Republic, on 24 March 2017. The FFM also concluded that chlorine was very likely used as a chemical weapon at Ltamenah Hospital and the surrounding area on 25 March 2017.

So BBC's summary that "The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) concluded Sarin was used as a weapon in the south of rebel-held Latamina on 24 March 2017, and chlorine at its hospital the next day." is spot on.

"However, a joint UN-OPCW mission that recently ended said it was confident that government forces used Sarin in an attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun just days after the incidents in nearby Latamina Ltamenah."

Really? No, that's false.

The ref link goes to an OCT 2017 BBC news media report which is NOT recent and not a genuine CW REPORT. Spin, spin, spin it anyway you can.

In a report released by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) confirmed that people were exposed to sarin, a chemical weapon, on 4 April 2017 in the Khan Shaykhun area, Idlib Province in the Syrian Arab Republic.

And here is the UN report :http://undocs.org/S/2017/904which states quite uncontroversially that Syrian government is responsible for these attacks :

Quote

On the basis of the foregoing, the Leadership Panel is confident that the Syrian ArabRepublic is responsible for the release of sarin at Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017.

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Russia on Thursday cast its 10th veto of United Nations Security Council action on Syria since the war began in 2011, blocking a U.S.-drafted resolution to renew an international inquiry into who is to blame for chemical weapons attacks in Syria.

Seriously, Lurker. It is time to drop your support for murderous dictators, and join the free world where reason and evidence and rational thought prevails.

2/2/2017: Stop With the Conspiracy Theories—Trump Is Bad Enough10/6/2017: Russiagate Is More Fiction Than Fact11/2/2017: Why the Papadopoulos Plea Isn’t a Smoking Gun11/16/2017: RT Was Forced to Register as a Foreign Agent12/5/2017: The Trump Team Definitely Colluded With a Foreign Power—Just Not the One You Think12/21/2017: More Media Malpractice in Russiagate2/22/2018: What We’ve Learned in Year 1 of Russiagate4/11/2018: The Get-Tough-on-Russia Consensus Is Escalating the Crisis in Syria5/3/2018: Don’t Count on Russiagate to Bring Trump Down6/13/2018: The Mueller Indictments Still Don’t Add Up to Collusion

IOW, his stance on "Russiagate" has not wavered one bit even as more and more evidence has come to light, and indictments and pleas have piled up. In fact, his thinking on the matter neatly mirrors Trump's own public statements: 1) There was no contact with the Russians. 2) Okay, there was contact, but no collusion was involved. 3) Okay, there was collusion, but it wasn't the bad kind. 4) Okay, it was bad collusion, but collusion isn't illegal, so so what? 5) Even if the collusion was illegal, it wasn't Trump, but Manafort, Michael Cohen, Jared, Donald, Jr., and other people he barely ever met and doesn't really know. 6) Okay, so he really does have long histories with those people; what's wrong with cozying up to Putin? 7) Look! Hillary's emails!!!

FWIW, Mate's pieces at The Intercept and elsewhere show pretty much the same mindset. We get it: Mate thinks there's nothing there. But unfortunately for him--and even more so for Mueller--he's very likely wrong.

Did you keep watching and considering the issues being raised from 20 mins to 45 minutes? If you did not then I think you may have done a disservice to yourself. Taken as a whole it is a very balanced dialogue which touches on and reminds viewers of many known facts and competing memes. Those things can be cross checked and verified independently.

I did in fact listen almost to the end, and found the first 16 minutes agreeable. But as the caricatures grew, and the information contradicted what I know in favor of clubbing together to accuse democrats and liberals, I began to find these appealing young people out of touch and eager to confirm their bias. They did include a number of caveats, but it was clear they were on a mission. I have an excellent memory and have been spending way too much time following all the strands of these developments.

Reagan accelerated the rot (and Thatcher) and we've been in trouble ever since. Bill Clinton - whose sleaze factor has always been a problem - was popular because he provided a corrective, in spite of unified opposition that survives to this day. He compromised because he had to, and to a sector of the progressive part of this argument, no compromise is acceptable, they'd rather burn the house down, which is what is happening, than face the real enemies.

There are real enemies about. Now it is time to bring together good people and start looking for the best in ourselves and not the worst. The Parkland youngsters are showing us the way, going around the country, convening town halls and helping voters register.

2/2/2017: Stop With the Conspiracy Theories—Trump Is Bad Enough10/6/2017: Russiagate Is More Fiction Than Fact11/2/2017: Why the Papadopoulos Plea Isn’t a Smoking Gun11/16/2017: RT Was Forced to Register as a Foreign Agent12/5/2017: The Trump Team Definitely Colluded With a Foreign Power—Just Not the One You Think12/21/2017: More Media Malpractice in Russiagate2/22/2018: What We’ve Learned in Year 1 of Russiagate4/11/2018: The Get-Tough-on-Russia Consensus Is Escalating the Crisis in Syria5/3/2018: Don’t Count on Russiagate to Bring Trump Down6/13/2018: The Mueller Indictments Still Don’t Add Up to Collusion

IOW, his stance on "Russiagate" has not wavered one bit even as more and more evidence has come to light, and indictments and pleas have piled up. In fact, his thinking on the matter neatly mirrors Trump's own public statements: 1) There was no contact with the Russians. 2) Okay, there was contact, but no collusion was involved. 3) Okay, there was collusion, but it wasn't the bad kind. 4) Okay, it was bad collusion, but collusion isn't illegal, so so what? 5) Even if the collusion was illegal, it wasn't Trump, but Manafort, Michael Cohen, Jared, Donald, Jr., and other people he barely ever met and doesn't really know. 6) Okay, so he really does have long histories with those people; what's wrong with cozying up to Putin? 7) Look! Hillary's emails!!!

FWIW, Mate's pieces at The Intercept and elsewhere show pretty much the same mindset. We get it: Mate thinks there's nothing there. But unfortunately for him--and even more so for Mueller--he's very likely wrong.

Thanks for that overview, Jim.

I read some of these articles, and he indeed seems to follow the Trump-narrative pretty closely. But even more than pro-Trump, Mate seems to be pro-Russia.

Mate may be another example of far-left meeting far-right, although I still think Mate is many steps up from Dore, who is pretty much parroting right-wingers like Alex Jones and Hannity.

Alexander Malkevich might be the new face of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s attempt to subvert American democracy. Or he might be a bumbling provocateur.

Malkevich, a Russian media executive with ties to the Kremlin, arrived in Washington this week to launch USA Really, an English-language news site that spreads the kind of disinformation and discord attributed to Russian trolls in a high-profile indictment earlier this year.

It has not been a soft landing.

First, WeWork ejected him from the co-working space he’d rented across the street from the White House — just two hours after he entered the building.

Then, his plan to stage a rally in front of the White House to mark the website’s launch was dashed because he sent his permit request to the wrong office.

So that makes two agents who approached the Trump campaign. Halper from CIA and Greenberg from FBI. Mifsud looks like UK or russian agent. Dearlove, Steele, Skripal, Miller all MI6. Page and Sater, FBI informants.

At this point it seems easier to list the ones that ain't spooks than the ones who are.

Stone and Caputo’s interactions with Greenberg mean that at least 11 Trump associates or campaign officials have acknowledged interactions with a Russian during the election season or presidential transition. Those interactions have become public in the year and a half since a Trump spokeswoman said no one associated with the campaign had communications with Russians or other foreign entities.